Over the past decade, psychological safety has moved from being an obscure academic term to a staple of corporate leadership language. Originally introduced by Harvard professor Amy C. Edmondson, the concept describes a shared belief that it’s safe to take interpersonal risks at work—like asking a question, admitting a mistake, or challenging the status quo.
This idea has been backed by a growing mountain of evidence. Google’s now-famous Project Aristotle (2016) found that psychological safety was the most important factor distinguishing high-performing teams from average ones. Teams that felt safe to speak up were more innovative, more collaborative, and less prone to failure. Edmondson herself has shown that psychologically safe teams make fewer catastrophic mistakes, not because they mess up less, but because they catch and learn from errors faster (Edmondson, 1999).
But popularity comes at a price.
In a recent article for the Harvard Business Review, Edmondson and her co-author Michaela Kerrissey describe how the term has been diluted and misunderstood—often to the point where it harms rather than helps teams. Misguided definitions, like equating safety with comfort or assuming it guarantees agreement, are now common in organizations genuinely trying to do better. Worse, these myths can make leaders skeptical, employees confused, and performance suffer.
Let’s explore the six most common misconceptions about psychological safety and how coaches and leaders can counter them—not with slogans or policies, but with conversations, structure, and courageous leadership.
“Psychological safety is not about being nice. It’s about giving candid feedback, openly admitting mistakes, and learning from each other.”
— Amy C. Edmondson, Novartis Professor of Leadership, Harvard Business School
1. “Psychological Safety Means Being Nice”
Imagine a team meeting where no one ever disagrees. Everyone nods along, compliments each other, and avoids bringing up bad news. It feels peaceful, maybe even polite. But is it psychologically safe?
Absolutely not.
This was the case for Nicole, a consultant in the Netherlands, who told Edmondson that her clients claimed their team was safe “because they never argue.” This, she said, was a red flag. The absence of disagreement doesn’t mean people feel free to speak their minds. It often means the opposite: they’re censoring themselves.
True psychological safety isn’t about being nice. It’s about candor. It’s about creating an environment where people can speak the truth, even if it’s uncomfortable—especially when it’s uncomfortable. As Edmondson writes, “Nice is the easy way out of a difficult conversation. Kind is being respectful, caring, and honest.”
A vivid historical example is the Bay of Pigs debacle under President Kennedy in 1961. Experts around him had doubts but kept quiet, fearing that raising concerns would be seen as disloyal. The result was disaster. The next year, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy implemented a process that required dissenting views. The result? An avoided nuclear war.
Tools and Practices:
Coaching Technique: “The Truth-Telling Ladder”
Help clients explore what truth they’re avoiding, why, and what conditions would make sharing it easier.Leadership Practice: “Speak First, Listen Hard”
Leaders should admit their own fallibility first: “Here’s what I might be missing. What do you see?” This opens the door to honest dialogue.
2. “Psychological Safety Means Getting Your Way”
At a healthcare organization, a team member complained that her idea being rejected in a meeting made her feel “psychologically unsafe.” But safety doesn’t mean agreement—it means being heard.
This confusion is dangerous. If people expect every idea to be accepted, honest feedback becomes impossible. Psychological safety ensures voice—not victory.
Think of it like this: democracy guarantees the right to vote, not that your candidate will win. Similarly, psychological safety guarantees freedom of expression, not decision-making power.
Teams need room to disagree respectfully and make decisions that reflect collective judgment. Otherwise, every pushback becomes personal, and teams can’t function.
Tools and Practices:
Dialogue Process: “Disagree and Commit” (Amazon Principle)
Encourage a culture where dissent is welcome during deliberation—but once a decision is made, the team unites behind it.Team Coaching Practice: “Feedback versus Rebuttal” Exercise
Practice giving and receiving ideas without defensiveness. What’s feedback? What’s a push for control? This clarity matters.
3. “Psychological Safety Means Job Security”
Layoffs and psychological safety seem incompatible—at least at first glance. But when Google laid off 12,000 employees in 2023, a worker stood up in a town hall meeting and directly criticized leadership. That act itself showed psychological safety was present: he believed he could speak up without retaliation.
Safety doesn’t mean immunity from organizational change. It means that within that uncertainty, people can ask hard questions, suggest alternatives, and be real.
In fact, layoffs handled without communication are far more damaging to trust than layoffs handled with honesty, transparency, and respect.
Tools and Practices:
Leadership Routine: “Ask Me Anything” Town Halls
Create regular spaces where employees can challenge leadership directly and receive thoughtful, transparent responses.Coaching Reflection: “What Does Safety Look Like Here?”
Ask: What kinds of things do people say when they feel safe? What do they hold back when they don’t?
4. “Psychological Safety Requires a Trade-Off with Performance”
Some leaders believe they must choose between excellence and empathy—as if holding people accountable kills psychological safety.
But research shows the opposite. High-performing teams excel because of psychological safety, not in spite of it. In Edmondson’s model, teams succeed when they have both high psychological safety and high accountability.
Without safety, people hide mistakes. Without standards, people drift. Excellence lives in the tension between the two.
Tools and Practices:
Team Exercise: The Performance/Safety Matrix
Plot your team’s current state. Are they in apathy (low/low), anxiety (low safety/high standards), comfort (high safety/low standards), or learning zone (high/high)?Coaching Question: “What’s a stretch you’d dare to take if you knew you wouldn’t be punished for failing?”
5. “Psychological Safety Can Be Mandated by Policy”
In 2024, Rhode Island passed a bill allowing employees to sue employers for failing to provide psychological safety. It hasn’t yet been enacted—but the message is clear: people think safety is something a company can enforce.
But as Edmondson puts it, psychological safety is not a policy—it’s a climate. You can’t force trust. You can only build it, one interaction at a time.
This means the role of the leader isn’t to declare safety—it’s to model it. That means showing vulnerability, asking for feedback, and rewarding openness.
Tools and Practices:
The 3Ms Framework (Messaging, Modeling, Mentoring)
Messaging: Talk openly about uncertainty and the need for input.
Modeling: Admit mistakes. Ask real questions.
Mentoring: Coach people on how they give and receive feedback.
Ritual: “Failure Walls” or “After-Action Reviews”
Celebrate intelligent risk-taking. Invite post-mortems that focus on learning, not blame.
6. “Psychological Safety Starts at the Top”
Yes, leaders matter. But the climate of a team often varies from one group to another—even in the same company. Psychological safety is local.
Think of a leader named Neil who facilitated deeper conversations by slowing his team’s pace, asking better questions, and focusing meetings beyond just performance updates. That team thrived—even though the broader organization had no psychological safety initiative.
Anyone, at any level, can help build it.
Tools and Practices:
Team Agreements
Co-create behavioral norms like: “Challenge ideas, not people” or “Assume positive intent, but ask questions.”Conversation Quality Assessment
Use Edmondson’s three-question scale during meetings:Are people contributing and listening?
Is there both advocacy and inquiry?
Is the group making progress?
When you see the conversation going off track—circling, dominating voices, or fake agreement—pause and reset. Invite dissent. Ask: “What are we missing?”
Final Word: Stop Talking About Safety. Start Talking About Purpose.
One of the most surprising findings in Edmondson and Kerrissey’s research was this: focusing too much on psychological safety can backfire. It can lead teams to aim for comfort, not clarity.
Instead, start with purpose. Psychological safety is not the goal—it’s the enabler. When people believe that speaking up will help achieve something meaningful—solving a customer problem, preventing a crisis, innovating faster—they’re more likely to do it.
So the next time your team is quiet, don’t ask, “Do they feel safe?” Ask, “Have we made it clear why speaking up matters?”
Sources:
Edmondson, A., & Kerrissey, M. (2025). What People Get Wrong About Psychological Safety. Harvard Business Review.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly.
Google’s Project Aristotle (2016): re:Work
Edmondson, A. (2023). Right Kind of Wrong: The Science of Failing Well. Atria Books.
